BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 - Mandatory spay & neuter - BILL DROPPED - kinda

[knny187]

FAQ:


How will AB 1634 work?
AB 1634 will require all dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered at 4 months of age unless they are registered purebreds and have special, government-issued permits.

How do I get a government permit to stop my dogs and cats from being sterilized?
You can only get a permit if you can prove you're a licensed breeder, or if your pet is a valid purebred and has been in at least one legitimate show or is in training.

A 4-month-old dog is too young to either compete OR be in training, yet those are the requirements under AB 1634 to get a permit?
Yes.

What about service dogs for the blind and disabled?AB 1634 will require all potential service dogs to be sterilized at four months unless they have begun training — an impossible criteria to meet since training doesn't start until dogs reach maturity.

How about police and rescue dogs?
There is no such thing as a 4-month-old puppy who is either "being trained or... is actively used by law enforcement," yet that is what AB 1634 requires to avoid forced sterilization of dogs used for police work, search and rescue, and narcotic and bomb detection. Nearly all police dogs are unaltered males. Neutering their offspring will wipe out decades of established bloodlines in just one generation.

Will the passage of AB 1634 at least provide more low-cost spaying and neutering programs?
AB 1634 does not provide ANY state funds for programs that are proven to reduce shelter in-takes and euthanasia rates: pet-owner education and low-cost spaying and neutering programs.

Does any other state require all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered?
No. The backers of AB 1634 continue to claim Rhode Island has such a law, but it does not apply to dogs.

Our 12-year-old family dog is a mutt, not a purebred. Will she have to be spayed?
Yes. All mixed breed dogs and cats over four months old must be spayed or neutered – or you'll be fined $500. If AB 1634 works as intended, all mixed breed dogs and domestic cats will be systematically eliminated from California.

I want to get my pet neutered, I just feel that four months is too soon. Can't I wait until he's older?
No. Under AB 1634, surgical sterilization will not be a decision made between you and your vet – it will be a government requirement.

I've been breeding dogs for 22 years. How will Assembly Bill 1634 affect me?
If you currently breed, show or sell dogs or cats in California, you will have to qualify and pay for a government permit or be forced to sterilize all your cats and/or dogs. Permits fees will be "determined by a local jurisdiction" and commonly start at $100-150 per animal, paid each year, but can go much higher.

[~flower~]

*Permission to cross post*

CVMA dues are due by 7/1. My employer just wrote across his renewal form "AB1634 - Drop my membership". I have it first hand that other veterinarians have done the very same. In most cases, your own veterinarian is opposed. You could ask them to consider not renewing their CVMA membership. Just another way to hit AB1634 where it hurts and try to get CVMA to admit their mistake.

[Hedgehog]

flower, I just asked a vet about what problems spay and neuter could cause in dogs.

She said there is only one thing: Male dogs can in some instances gain weight if they're not excersised, since their metabolism is altered.

However, the risk for health benefits are many:

*No risk of prostate cancer

*LOWERED risk of ovary cancer, and lowered risks for other cancers as well

But no negatives.

She told me however, that many dog owners were opposed to having spay and neuter, particularly people living in rural areas.

Reason was that they had some belief that "the dogs aren't whole without their balls".

Also, this vet is a long-time dog owner herself.

You claim there are health problems, even cancer risk increases, and then this vet tells me otherwise. Something doesn't add up.

-Hedge

[~flower~]

Maybe your vet should read the studies done.   Early altering makes the risk of bone cancers greater for one.   Behavior problems in both males and females rises, as well as urinary incontinence in females.   This could lead to more animals being dumped in shelters that otherwise would not have been.

I have answered this before in this thread and provided information.  If you are not going to read it, then stop asking the same questions.


  And I will say this again in bold:

  THIS IS ABOUT EARLY SPAY & NEUTERING, NOT ALTERING AT BREED APPROPRIATE AGES. THAT IS ONE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THIS BILL.


  Now go ask your vet if altering a Great Dane at 4 months is a good idea. 

 

[knny187]

Your Vet sounds pretty misinformed. 

I've seen females gain weight...but not usually the males.  Usually in males...I've seen it stunt or alter their full growth potential.  Neuter a Male before he fully matures sets up a lot of issues.

I've seen (especially larger dog breeds) affect the size of the head, length of legs, & thickness in chest.  I'm sure it also may affect how well the bones develop & form.  Lets also include joints & connective tissues.

[Hedgehog]

I respect your opinions, and both of you have lots of experience with dogs.

But IMO, you don't seem to offer any alternative, just wanting to fight the spay and neuter.

Would you support a bill for mandatory spay and neuter at a higher age?


FWIW, I believe the breeding situation with dogs and cats is going overboard right now. People are trying to create either smaller and smaller dogs, or tougher and tougher dogs, crossbreeding from Staffordshire and Rottweiller's, Dobermann's, et al.

Some kind of regulation has to be made, in order to protect the animals.

-Hedge

-Hedge

[~flower~]

Hedge, I posted this that was just passed in Conn.  The key is EDUCATION and programs to help people afford to alter there pets.   They estimate at least 10,000 puppies are smuggled into CA from Mexico.  This bill passes and that number will rise because puppies will not be available. These are puppy mill puppies that will bring with them hosts of problems from poor breeding. 

  The majority of shelter animals are juvenile or adults.  This bill does nothing to address that.  Nor does it do anything for the feral cat population, provides no help to people that try to cut down the population by trapping, altering and releasing.  Education and affordable options are what should be implemented.  Not compounding the problem by harming pets that would of stayed in a home, but are instead going to be surrendered because they have behavior problems or incontinence that could of been avoided.   And what about the responsible owners who are going to spend tons of money and watch their pets die from the increase in bone cancers? 

  They call this "The Healthy Pet Act" but is  should be "The UNHealthy Pet Act"


 What passed in Conn:

  AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXPANSION OF THE ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL PROGRAM.

SUMMARY:
This bill expands the state's Animal Population Control Program (APCP),
requiring the agriculture commissioner to establish programs to (1)
sterilize and vaccinate the pets of low-income people and (2) assist
registered nonprofit rescue groups with feral cat sterilization and
vaccination. Under the bill, the commissioner must use APCP funds to pay for
the two new programs.

Specifically, the bill allows the commissioner to (1) use up to 20% of APCP
funds for the two new programs (up to 10% for each) and (2) seek funds for
them. It also increases, from $180,000 to $225,000, the amount of APCP funds
that the Agriculture Department may use for administrative costs. It
eliminates a provision of current law that allows the commissioner to set
aside APCP funds to assist in the sterilization of feral cats.

The bill requires the agriculture commissioner to distribute a standard dog
licensing form to pet shop operators, grooming facilities, municipal pounds,
or dog training facilities that offer to make it available to dog owners.
Under current law, the commissioner distributes this form only to
veterinarians.

It makes a minor change and conforming and technical changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2007, except a conforming change is effective
upon passage.

APCP FUNDING AND NEW PROGRAMS
By law, residents must pay a $45 adoption fee for any unsterilized dog or
cat they buy or adopt from a municipal impound facility, for which they
receive a sterilization voucher and vaccination benefits.

By law, a resident may redeem an APCP voucher at a participating
veterinarian's office; the voucher is valid for 60 days. The $45 sale or
adoption fee goes to APCP. Additional funding for the APCP comes from (1) an
annual surcharge on Connecticut dog licenses ($2 for a sterilized and $6 for
an unsterilized dog), (2) proceeds from the sale of “Caring for Pets�
commemorative license plates, and (3) donations. APCP funds are placed in
the animal population control account that the law required the agriculture
commissioner to establish.

Under current law, the commissioner may solicit and accept funds from any
public or private source to help carry out APCP goals. The bill allows him
to do so for the existing voucher and the two new programs and allows a
donor to earmark funds for any or all of the programs.

Under current law, the commissioner may suspend the APCP voucher program
when less than $300,000 is available for it and the commissioner may
reinstate the program when funds exceed that amount. The bill expands this
provision to include all three programs, allowing the commissioner to
suspend and reinstate any or all of them.

Low-Income Pet Sterilization and Vaccination
Under the bill, pet owners receiving or eligible for certain forms of public
assistance are eligible to receive financial assistance to have their pets
sterilized and vaccinated. It defines a “low income person� as someone
receiving or eligible for one of the following programs:

1. the food stamp program,
2. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,
3. Medicaid Fee-for-Service or HUSKY A,
4. state-administered general assistance, either medical or cash assistance
components,
5. state supplement, or
6. any other public assistance program that the commissioner determines
qualifies a person as low-income.

Feral Sterilization and Vaccination
The bill requires the commissioner to establish a program to assist
nonprofit rescue groups with feral cat sterilization and vaccination. The
bill defines a “feral cat� an animal of the species felis catus (1) that is
unowned and exists in a wild or untamed state or has returned to an untamed
state from domestication and (2) whose behavior is suggestive of a wild
animal. It eliminates a provision that allows the agriculture commissioner
to provide up to $40,000 in APCP funds per year, if available, to charitable
organizations to sterilize feral cats.

BACKGROUND
APCP Veterinarian Reimbursement
The commissioner must pay participating veterinarians for the sterilization
and vaccinations of a dog or cat when he or she submits a signed APCP
voucher (CGS § 22-380i(c)).
COMMITTEE ACTION
Environment Committee
Joint Favorable Change of Reference
Yea24Nay4(03/21/2007)

Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee
Joint Favorable

[~flower~]

And one other suggestion I have mentioned:  leash laws for cats.   If cats are not allowed to roam that would drastically cut down the number of kittens.  And most people would voluntarily get them altered because they won't want to deal with a cat in heat or a male cat spraying.   There may be some conflict by farmers that use outdoor cats for rodent control, but I think that could be satisfactorily addressed with exception rules.

 
  Responsible breeders that breed for health and temperament will be numbered.  What will rise is the backyard breeders churning out ill bred dogs and the problems that come with them.  The responsible breeders that continue to breed will have a limited gene pool which also will affect the quality of puppies available.


Just because no other solution has been put on the table,that is not a reason to pass a bill that will make matters even worse.   Don't pass anything and work on these issues that have been brought to light


If you currently breed, show or sell dogs or cats in California, you will have to qualify and pay for a government permit or be forced to sterilize all your cats and/or dogs. Permits fees will be "determined by a local jurisdiction" and commonly start at $100-150 per animal, paid each year, but can go much higher.

[knny187]

Well, from an 'American' standpoint.....


first - I am extremely leary of an new law that puts the state or government more in control of our personal life & less out of the people's hands.

second - I strongly believe that only the responsible pet owners are going to suffer from this & pets of the responsible pet owner

third - for a 4 month old dog....this is not a good law for us or them.  If they have more health issues...who's going to end up paying for it & who is going to suffer?

fourth - there's certain laws in place that are 'ridiculous'.  For example....if there's a feral cat in my back yard living & spitting out kittens every couple of months....do you think animal control will come out & get them? (mind you...a cat can carry two separate litters at once)  Well, unless the cat "mysteriously" has a collar on it...they won't come.  It's MY responsibility to jump out from behind a bush like Rambo...box them up...& bring them in.  My other choice is to ignore all the cat shit all over the place & the constant meowing at night.  Where I'm original from (from a small country town)...it was common practice just to pull out a 22 & shoot them.  I believe there should be a better way than this practice.  One thing we used to do...was take a litter of kittens & place them in a farmers barn.  Typically a farmer would take on a bunch of cats to minimize the mice population getting into the feed.  Sure...that's not an answer for everyone & every situation because there's millions of cats out there...but hell...I was a kid & came up with a simple idea.

[knny187]

If you currently breed, show or sell dogs or cats in California, you will have to qualify and pay for a government permit or be forced to sterilize all your cats and/or dogs. Permits fees will be "determined by a local jurisdiction" and commonly start at $100-150 per animal, paid each year, but can go much higher.

What's ridiculous about this...is I know "responsible" breeders (not puppy mills/farms) that have 6-8 dogs that they also show.  This is just one more expense that makes things 'dumb'.

Every town/city has an ordnance of how many (dogs per se) you can have & maintain on your property.  How about enforcing that law?  There's laws in place...that are not even me enforced.  So....lets come out with new laws.  Does that make sense?  I know one breeder that has 6. Her town ordnance only allows 6 per household.  If she decides one of the dogs is not going to work out for show, or has issues....she places the dog in a good proper facilitated home before taking on another dog.

[~flower~]

 Even if a breeder is willing to pay that fee every year that does not mean they will get an exemption.  The county can deny the request.    A county can not grant any, or a certain number.  That further takes away a persons right to make.

 The AKC has stated that if this passes they will no longer have dog shows in CA.  That is a MAJOR loss of money for Long Beach (I believe that is where that one show is held).  They have contracts for 2007  & 08, but will not renew after that.

  They could take some of the money generated by the dog show revenue and put it into programs that could help people be responsible, and help groups deal with the feral cat population and it would be a win win situation. 

http://www.akc.org/press_center/fact_vs_fiction/index.cfm?#061407

FICTION: Moving the upcoming 2007 AKC/Eukanuba National Championship from Long Beach is a tactic that will help us defeat AB 1634.

FACT: Cancellation of the show at this point would be tantamount to surrendering to those who would eliminate dog breeding and the sport of purebred dogs in California. In order to most effectively support the responsible dog owners and fanciers in California in their fight against AB 1634, we need to continue to be active in the state.

In his June Chairman's Report, Ron Menaker said, "The AKC/Eukanuba National Championship is scheduled to be held in Long Beach in December 2007 & 2008. Although we have considered making Long Beach the permanent home, I have communicated to both the Mayor of Long Beach and to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that enactment of AB 1634 would make that impossible." You can read the full text of this report.

AKC will not abandon our opposition to this bill. Moving our show at this point is premature, however if the bill becomes law, will not hesitate to do so in the future. Notwithstanding the fact that our event alone brings $21.7 million to the City of Long Beach, AKC events held throughout California generate well over $110 million annually for local economies. In the event of AB 1634 becoming law, revenue from our ongoing events would likely be shifted to the neighboring states of Oregon, Nevada and Arizona

In regards to the city of Long Beach, Assembly members Karnette and Richardson were initially committed to opposing the bill; however, after 10 hours of lobbying, Asm. Levine was able to convince them to reverse their vote. While we are deeply disappointed by this action, we should not forget that representatives of the City of Long Beach, the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, the Long Beach Convention & Visitors Bureau, as well as a wide variety of business leaders within Long Beach have allied themselves with the AKC to stop AB 1634. AKC looks forward to working with the State Senate and specifically the Senators from Long Beach to defeat AB 1634.

It is also important to remember that the bill is only halfway through the legislative process. Now in the State Senate, we expect it to be assigned to a policy committee soon. Once that information is available we will post an update and ask fanciers and concerned dog owners to contact the members of that committee. Right now it is absolutely vital that Californians contact their State Senator and express their opposition to AB 1634. Legislators are most interested in hear from their constituents!

[~flower~]

What's ridiculous about this...is I know "responsible" breeders (not puppy mills/farms) that have 6-8 dogs that they also show.  This is just one more expense that makes things 'dumb'.

Every town/city has an ordnance of how many (dogs per se) you can have & maintain on your property.  How about enforcing that law?  There's laws in place...that are not even me enforced.  So....lets come out with new laws.  Does that make sense?  I know one breeder that has 6. Her town ordnance only allows 6 per household.  If she decides one of the dogs is not going to work out for show, or has issues....she places the dog in a good proper facilitated home before taking on another dog.

note the part in quotes:  "determined by local jurisdiction".   That means they don't have to give you an intact permit.  They could deny everyone.   Even if you are willing to pay, they could still say no.    And you can't usually tell by 4 months of age if a dog is "show worthy".  So even applying for a permit you have to have a showing dog, and I believe the dog must get it's championship by a certain age.  Their are all kinds of crazy wordings that make it almost impossible to show a "reason" you want an animal left intact. 


 And most responsible breeders have clauses in their contracts that if the buyer is for whatever reason unable to care for the dog they must contact the breeder first, and the breeder will take the dog and place it.  They don't want their dogs dumped somewhere down the line.  They don't contribute to the shelter populations.
 

[Hedgehog]

flower, with all due respect, but dog owners aren't going to have to watch their dogs die of bone cancer because of this law. You're making it sound like they will drop like flies if this law is passed.

That's just not true.

I'm sure that the increase in bone cancer cases is balanced out, and then some, by the decrease of ovarian cancer and the total disapperance of prostate cancer.

knny: you make a good point about the US law tradition. I think you have to take into consideration how the general public feels about legislation.

But there is one thing to be concerned about too much legislation. Another thing to be paranoid about it.

Rules and legislations can help prevent dogs and cats from being abused.

Why not get breeding under control, instead of waiting for a situation where the situation is really bad, with even more perverted breeds?

Why wait for the shit to hit the fan instead of being preemptive?

-Hedge

[~flower~]

Do you think the studies were incorrect about behavior problems as a result of early neutering?

  Do you think that will help the shelter population? 

  Do I have a RIGHT to a healthy pet?  Does my pet deserve the RIGHT to have a good quality of life? Does a female dog deserve the chance to not be put down because she was early altered and now leaks pee all over the house?  And no one will adopt that dog because of that, so she is doomed to die?    Do people with kids deserve the RIGHT to add a companion to their family that they don't have the increased risk of aggression from early altering?    People surrender animals because they get bored with them or a lifestyle change, these are the older animals.  This bill does nothing to address that and will make the problem worse because animals will be surrendered because of problems brought on by early altering.

   Giant breeds are already predisposed to osteosarcomas, that is a fact.  And it is a fact that early altering can play a role in osteosarcomas down the line.

   What health problems do you think people would have if they were "altered" when they were a baby, and their body did not have the benefit of hormones to have a healthy life?   Do you think it is any different for animals?

    I'm sure that the increase in bone cancer cases is balanced out, and then some, by the decrease of ovarian cancer and the total disapperance of prostate cancer.

Are you kidding me?  Balanced out?  How do you figure that?  Is it okay if it is your dog that gets "balanced out" and dies after you spend tons of money on it? And you get the pleasure of watching it suffer?

  Why not educate and get affordable programs in place so people could alter their pets at an APPROPRIATE age? 

  Like knny said why not enforce some of the EXISTING laws instead of making up new ones that will make an even bigger problem. 

 

[~flower~]

Here's another point that this bill ignores:

  Vaccinations should not be given at the time of surgery. Rabies vaccination is required by dogs at 4 months of age in California.  Are they going to IGNORE the vaccine manufacturers recommendations and do both at the same time despite the harm to the animal and lack of efficacy of the vaccine that may result?


'Don’t vaccinate under stress; corticosteriods inhibit lymphocyte metabolism and cell growth. Adrenalin releases lymphocytic AMP (cyclic) which is immunosuppressive. Stress decreases the activity of natural killer cells.

Don’t vaccinate within 2 weeks of surgery. Anesthetics are immunosuppressive.'

[~flower~]

Repeat Posting for Hedge:


Early Spay-Neuter Considerations
for the Canine Athlete
One Veterinarian's Opinion
© 2005 Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP

Neuter or not?
Those of us with responsibility for the health of canine athletes need to continually read and evaluate new scientific studies to ensure that we are taking the most appropriate care of our performance dogs. This article provides evidence through a number of recent studies to suggest that veterinarians and owners working with canine athletes should revisit the standard protocol in which all dogs that are not intended for breeding are spayed and neutered at or before 6 months of age.

Orthopedic Considerations
A study by Salmeri et al in 1991 found that bitches spayed at 7 weeks grew significantly taller than those spayed at 7 months, who were taller than those not spayed (or presumably spayed after the growth plates had closed).(1) A study of 1444 Golden Retrievers performed in 1998 and 1999 also found bitches and dogs spayed and neutered at less than a year of age were significantly taller than those spayed or neutered at more than a year of age.(2) The sex hormones, by communicating with a number of other growth-related hormones, promote the closure of the growth plates at puberty (3), so the bones of dogs or bitches neutered or spayed before puberty continue to grow. Dogs that have been spayed or neutered well before puberty can frequently be identified by their longer limbs, lighter bone structure, narrow chests and narrow skulls. This abnormal growth frequently results in significant alterations in body proportions and particularly the lengths (and therefore weights) of certain bones relative to others. For example, if the femur has achieved its genetically determined normal length at 8 months when a dog gets spayed or neutered, but the tibia, which normally stops growing at 12 to 14 months of age continues to grow, then an abnormal angle may develop at the stifle. In addition, with the extra growth, the lower leg below the stifle likely becomes heavier (because it is longer), and may cause increased stresses on the cranial cruciate ligament. In addition, sex hormones are critical for achieving peak bone density.(4) These structural and physiological alterations may be the reason why at least one recent study showed that spayed and neutered dogs had a higher incidence of CCL rupture.(5) Another recent study showed that dogs spayed or neutered before 5 1/2 months had a significantly higher incidence of hip dysplasia than those spayed or neutered after 5 1/2 months of age, although it should be noted that in this study there were no standard criteria for the diagnosis of hip dysplasia.(6) Nonetheless, breeders of purebred dogs should be cognizant of these studies and should consider whether or not pups they bred were spayed or neutered when considering breeding decisions.

Cancer Considerations
A retrospective study of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a 5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma, one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed bitches than intact bitches and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males.(7) A study of 3218 dogs demonstrated that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer.(8) A separate study showed that neutered dogs had a two-fold higher risk of developing bone cancer.(9) Despite the common belief that neutering dogs helps prevent prostate cancer, at least one study suggests that neutering provides no benefit.(10) There certainly is evidence of a slightly increased risk of mammary cancer in female dogs after one heat cycle, and for increased risk with each subsequent heat. While about 30 % of mammary cancers are malignant, as in humans, when caught and surgically removed early the prognosis is very good.(12) Luckily, canine athletes are handled frequently and generally receive prompt veterinary care.

Behavioral Considerations
The study that identified a higher incidence of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in spayed or neutered dogs also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early.(5) Further, the study that identified a higher incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs neutered or spayed before 5 1/2 months also showed that early age gonadectomy was associated with an increased incidence of noise phobias and undesirable sexual behaviors.(6) A recent report of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation reported significantly more behavioral problems in spayed and neutered bitches and dogs. The most commonly observed behavioral problem in spayed females was fearful behavior and the most common problem in males was aggression.(12)

Other Health Considerations
A number of studies have shown that there is an increase in the incidence of female urinary incontinence in dogs spayed early (13), although this finding has not been universal. Certainly there is evidence that ovarian hormones are critical for maintenance of genital tissue structure and contractility.(14, 15) Neutering also has been associated with an increased likelihood of urethral sphincter incontinence in males.(16) This problem is an inconvenience, and not usually life-threatening, but nonetheless one that requires the dog to be medicated for life. A health survey of several thousand Golden Retrievers showed that spayed or neutered dogs were more likely to develop hypothyroidism.(2) This study is consistent with the results of another study in which neutering and spaying was determined to be the most significant gender-associated risk factor for development of hypothyroidism.(17) Infectious diseases were more common in dogs that were spayed or neutered at 24 weeks or less as opposed to those undergoing gonadectomy at more than 24 weeks.(18) Finally, the AKC-CHF report demonstrated a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines in neutered dogs as compared to intact.(12)

To spay or not to spay
I have gathered these studies to show that our practice of routinely spaying or neutering every dog at or before the age of 6 months is not a black-and-white issue. Clearly more studies need to be done to evaluate the effects of prepubertal spaying and neutering, particularly in canine athletes.

Currently, I have significant concerns with spaying or neutering canine athletes before puberty. But of course, there is the pet overpopulation problem. How can we prevent the production of unwanted dogs while still leaving the gonads to produce the hormones that are so important to canine growth and development? One answer would be to perform vasectomies in males and tubal ligation in females, to be followed after maturity by ovariohysterectomy in females to prevent mammary cancer and pyometra. One possible disadvantage is that vasectomy does not prevent some unwanted behaviors associated with males such as marking and humping. On the other hand, females and neutered males frequently participate in these behaviors too. Really, training is the best solution for these issues. Another possible disadvantage is finding a veterinarian who is experienced in performing these procedures. Nonetheless, some do, and if the procedures were in greater demand, more veterinarians would learn them.

I believe it is important that we assess each situation individually. For canine athletes, I currently recommend that dogs and bitches be spayed or neutered after 14 months of age.

References:

   1. Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203
   2. http://www.grca.org/healthsurvey.pdf
   3. Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55.
   4. Gilsanz V, Roe TF, Gibbens DT, Schulz EE, Carlson ME, Gonzalez O, Boechat MI. Effect of sex steroids on peak bone density of growing rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 1):E416-21.
   5. Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301-5.
   6. Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387.
   7. Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999 Mar-Apr;13(2):95-103
   8. Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40
   9. Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9.
  10. Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goullaud E. The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987 Oct-Dec;1(4):183-7
  11. http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/Biennial_National_Parent_Club_Canine_Health_Conference.pdf
  12. Meuten DJ. Tumors in Domestic Animals. 4th Edn. Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, p. 575
  13. Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001
  14. Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology. 2006 Jan;147(1):61-9.
  15. Kim NN, Min K, Pessina MA, Munarriz R, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Effects of ovariectomy and steroid hormones on vaginal smooth muscle contractility. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):43-50.
  16. Aaron A, Eggleton K, Power C, Holt PE. Urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence in male dogs: a retrospective analysis of 54 cases. Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996
  17. Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204:761-7 1994
  18. Howe LM, Slater MR, Boothe HW, Hobson HP, Holcom JL, Spann AC. Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217-21.



 

[~flower~]

Should we really be trying to increase the odds of cancer?


Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Cancer is cancer, whether in people or pets, says expert

One in Four Dogs Will Die of Cancer - #1 Cause of Death in Dogs Over Age Two


Morris Animal Foundation (MAF) has launched a $30 million effort to cure canine cancer within a dog's lifetime - the next 10 to 20 years.

World-renowned specialists agree that this effort will not only save countless dogs from premature death, but should also help produce breakthroughs for human cancers – in particular childhood cancers.

Endorsement of this initiative has been received from: Children's Oncology Group, Animal Cancer Foundation, MIT/Harvard (Broad Institute), and the Mayo Clinic.

This global cancer cure initiative is attracting major corporate support, including a $1.1 million donation from Pfizer Animal Health for a canine tumor tissue bank, to help researchers uncover new cancer therapies.

"One in four dogs will die of cancer. Cancer is the number one cause of disease-related death in dogs over the age of two. Sadly, many of the most popular dog breeds are especially susceptible to developing cancer. Your donation may very well save your own beloved pet dog from suffering cancer’s effects,” states Dr. Patricia N. Olson, CEO and president of MAF.

"This is the ultimate win-win situation," says Dr. Olson. "As we treat and cure cancer in our pet dogs, we may help alleviate the ravages of cancer among humans. This animal-human bond is simply inspirational."

To learn more, visit: www.curecaninecancer.org.

According to Dr. Stephen Withrow, director of the world's largest Animal Cancer Center at Colorado State University, "Dramatic progress has been made in the last several decades on understanding the causes and treatment of cancer.

“Cancer is cancer regardless of species; discoveries in either dogs or humans will have rapid acceptance in the other species." says Dr. Withrow. "Humans really are the dog's best friend. For example, surgical and chemotherapeutic techniques in dog's bone cancer have helped guide treatment in children and visa versa."

The National Cancer Institute, the global leader in human cancer research, has included the study of cancer in dogs within its Comparative Oncology Program since 2003. NCI's Comparative Oncology Program integrates the study of cancer biology and therapy in dogs with the broader cancer research community.

Dr. Richard Gorlick, Children's Oncology Group, whose members treat 90 percent of all children with cancer in North America, says canine-human research is invaluable.

"Cancer in pet dogs strongly resembles the cancers we see in pediatric patients. We strongly support MAF's initiative and believe that results will be ultimately helpful for both children and canine cancer patients."


All Dogs Face Serious Cancer Threat -- These Breeds Are Most Susceptible
Bernese Mountain Dog: Histiocytic sarcoma (soft tissues)
Boxer: Lymphoma (lymph nodes) Brain Cancer
Cocker Spaniel: Lymphoma (lymph nodes)
Golden Retriever: Lymphoma (lymph nodes), Hemangiosarcoma (blood vessels/spleen); 60% of golden retrievers die of cancer
Labrador Retriever: Lymphoma (lymph nodes), Hemangiosarcoma (blood vessels/spleen)
English Springer Spaniel: Mammary gland (breast)
Pug: Mast Cell (skin)
Shar-pei: Mast Cell (skin)
Greyhound: Osteosarcoma (bone)
Rottweiler: Osteosarcoma (bone)
Any large or giant breed: Osteosarcoma (bone)
Collie: Nasal Cancer
Scottish Terrier: Transitional cell carcinoma (bladder), Melanoma (skin/mouth)
Chow Chow: Stomach Cancer
Flat-coated Retriever: Transitional cell carcinoma (bladder), Melanoma (skin/mouth)

[Hedgehog]

I read the reference number 6 at pubMed:

Here is the conclusion:

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because early-age gonadectomy appears to offer more benefits than risks for male dogs, animal shelters can safely gonadectomize male dogs at a young age and veterinary practitioners should consider recommending routine gonadectomy for client-owned male dogs before the traditional age of 6 to 8 months.


For female dogs, however, increased urinary incontinence suggests that delaying gonadectomy until at least 3 months of age may be beneficial.


So spay and neuter at around the age of 4 months seems like a good idea, according to this study, that you cited.

Case closed.

-Hedge

[~flower~]

Glad you look at the whole picture Hedge.  I guess aggression and other behavior problems as well as the increased cancer risk doesn't really matter.   

[Hedgehog]

I read the reference number 6 at pubMed:

Here is the conclusion:

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because early-age gonadectomy appears to offer more benefits than risks for male dogs, animal shelters can safely gonadectomize male dogs at a young age and veterinary practitioners should consider recommending routine gonadectomy for client-owned male dogs before the traditional age of 6 to 8 months.


For female dogs, however, increased urinary incontinence suggests that delaying gonadectomy until at least 3 months of age may be beneficial.


So spay and neuter at around the age of 4 months seems like a good idea, according to this study, that you cited.

Case closed.

-Hedge

Flower, from the study that your own article used as a reference:

Because early-age gonadectomy appears to offer more benefits than risks for male dogs,

I don't know how it can be put any more blunt than that?

And this wasn't even my source. It was your.

The facts seems to point in favor of spay and neutering.

-Hedge

[~flower~]

Again, we are talking EARLY spaying and neutering, not spaying in neutering in general.   

   EARLY spaying and neutering poses significant increase of health and behavior problems that could be avoided with breed appropriate altering.   There is a big difference in when a Chihuahua could get altered as to a Great Dane.

 Considering you don't have pets, and I believe you have stated you are not really a pet person (?), I can see how people having to deal with these consequences is of no concern to you.   To people that do care about the quality of life for their companions, they are a concern.  To owners of large and giant breeds where this would have the greatest affect on health it is an even bigger concern.

   I have a right as a responsible pet owner to make decisions in my pets best interest.  Any surgery is dangerous, I think that is my right to decide when my pet is able and ready to go through surgery.

  People won't take their pets to the vet if this gets passed.  They won't get the mandatory rabies.  They will be afraid they will be fined because they have an unaltered pet.   Where is anything in this bill to help people pay for altering, one of the main reasons people don't do it.  The cost.   It cost me over $200 to neuter my chi.   My female dane I have been quoted up to $600. 

  Their are a lot of different flaws with this bill.   I just pointed out another one, the mandatory 4 months rabies vac.  Rabies vaccines are only licensed to fgive to healthy dogs over 16weeks of age.  If an animal is under stress or has had surgery the efficacy of the vaccine is questionable. So what does a person do?  Or does California not care about the possible rabies epidemic because the vaccines won't have taken?  That could be a lot of dogs running around able to get and pass on rabies!

   You, like a lot of people see the "reduce shelter population" and go YES! I am for that!   On the surface that sounds great to me.  But when you look at what may result from this bill you see that it can bring more harm and problems without addressing the underlying problem.  Where are the programs to help people alter?  Where is the feral cat population being addressed?   Where is the educating of the people?  No where.  This bill will do nothing and make people that otherwise would of been responsible avoid doing some other things required by law because they will fear getting fined.   The pet gene pool will suffer.  The gene pool for service and working dogs will diminish.   You can't do a health assessment on a 4mo. puppy to see if it will bring health to your lines?  Or check for hips or eyes?   What puppies that will be available will be smuggled in or be of poor health. 

  I can not support a Healthy Pet Extinction Bill.


   Sorry, I look at the whole picture.

[Hedgehog]

How many of your dogs have you had neutered or spayed?

I am not really a pet person, no.

But I care about animals rights.

Also, the study YOU referred to, recommended neutering and spaying at around age 4 months for female dogs, and even earlier for male dogs.

That study claimed the benefits outweighed the negatives.

And when faced with these facts, you're resorting to using cost of spay and neutering as an argument?

Is this about money all of a sudden?

I thought it was a health issue?

As far as your opinion on the lack of education: I believe there may be some merit to it, but one bill can't solve everything. One step at a time.

-Hedge

[knny187]

my position has never changed

people need to have the rights for their own pets & not determined by the state or government.

secondly...my dog wants his nuts intact...I asked him   

third...I understand over population....but I also see where premature neutering or spaying slowing down, altering, changing, the developmental stage in dogs.  I 'doubt' it has a health benefit. 

[~flower~]

You didn't look at the studies on increased hypothyroidsim, cancer rate increases, the study done by the CCI (service dogs) that showed aggression and fear problems in early altered dogs.  You are taking one study, that doesn't address all the concerns and basing it on that? 

 I have had 4 dogs altered.   All were over the old standard recommendation of 6 months of age.  My male dane was done after 2 years of age.  Giant breeds should minimally wait until they are at least a year of age, preferably older. 

  It is a health issue for me, but this bill does nothing to address one of the main reasons people do not alter, the cost!   

 This bill punishes the responsible people and their pets.  It does nothing to address the people that still will not be able to afford to alter their pets.  Nor will these people even vaccinate for rabies because they won't want to risk a $500 fine if they are found with a dog over 4mos unaltered.  People won't license their dogs.   People may not get medical attention for their pets because of the risk of being fined. 

  This bill is all fluff, it sounds good on the surface, but inside it's lacking. 

  You care about animal rights? Well so do I, and mine and everyone else's pets have a right to a healthy life.  Pets deserve to get medical attention and not be left to suffer and die because their owner couldn't afford the altering on time and now risks a $500 fine so they don't take them in to the vets.  Or their dog gets hypothyroidism (increases with early altering) which requires medication for the rest of their life but the owner can't afford it so they surrender them.  Hip dysplasia already common, will be even more common, again, expensive surgery and pain and less of a quality of life even if the owner can afford surgery.   Certain cancers that are already common in some breeds (particularly large and giant breeds that this 4mos altering affects the most).  Most people can't afford treatment for that.   

  Or how about the dog that bites a kid, brought on by fear and aggression as a result of early altering?   Is that acceptable? 

  Did you ask your vet friend if they recommend altering a Great Dane at 4mos of age?

[~flower~]

Also, the study YOU referred to, recommended neutering and spaying at around age 4 months for female dogs, and even earlier for male dogs.

Actually I did not refer to that study, it was a reference used by the vet that authored the article I posted.  Did you read it?  Did you see his reasoning behind why he believes EARLY altering is a health/behavior risk?  I think he makes some very valid points, one that people should be aware of when deciding when to alter their pets.  He looked at the whole picture.   Same as the canine service dog organization did when they did their study. 

 The responsible people that would be altering their pets anyways, will now be doing it at an age that gives more risks to the animal.  The unresponsible people will still not be altering.  The responsible persons pets will face the possibility of a poorer quality of life, along with a shorter one from the increased joint and cancer risks.   

  Meanwhile the underlying problem is still there.  We just have a lot more unhealthy pets for the responsible people.

  That certainly does not seem like a benefit to animals.